To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation of the EEC's Renaval programme in the United Kingdom.

The Government have submitted Renaval applications for Plymouth and Gibraltar. My right hon. Friends and I hope to be able to decide soon whether to make further applications. Our decisions have been delayed by changes in the position in Brussels.

The Minister may not know that I was a member of the European Parliament's regional policy and planning committee which considered this programme. We were concerned that extra help, besides normal regional fund assistance, should go to areas where traditional industries were in decline. Can the Minister confirm that the shipbuilding areas in Britain that have had the biggest job losses will receive the greatest assistance from the fund, and can he tell the House the position on Tyne and Wear?

The position is this. I understand the concern of hon. Members about the Renaval programme. Hitherto, we have taken the view that it would be premature to make a final decision on the matter, although we have not decided against making a decision. We may make an application, but we have come to no final view. The problem is that a decision on Renaval has to be taken in the context of other objective 2 funding programmes because they impact one on the other. As soon as we can have a clear view of the whole, we shall be in a good position to make a final decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to ensure that prospective borrowers are aware of their rights and duties under consumer credit legislation.

Regulations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 require that consumer credit agreements include statements about the rights of consumers under the Act. It is one of the duties of the Director General of Fair Trading to provide information and advice to the public about consumer credit legislation.

Will my hon. Friend curb the activities of credit reference agencies that give out references on people's creditworthiness by reference not to the individual, but to the address at which the individual lives? Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a dangerous and misleading practice, and will he provide a means of redress for people whose reputations are harmed in that way?

My hon. Friend has touched on an undoubtedly difficult area. We believe that the laws and regulations in this area are generally adequate and have been so until now, but my hon. Friend is right to point out what can be a difficult area. I undertake to look at the matter again urgently and to see whether there are any methods that we could use to improve the position and to address the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.

When the Minister is looking at consumer credit legislation as it affects borrowers, will he arrange for more information to be given to people who borrow from banks so that they know, for example, that when they obtain money on an overdraft it is normally repayable on demand—most people do not know that—and that if they exceed the limit they could be charged a prodigious, unwarranted and disgraceful rate of interest of which they have had no advance notice?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that new regulations on credit advertisement will come into effect next February. They will cover some of the points that he has raised, such as the use of more understandable English, and they will close certain loopholes. It is always difficult to legislate or to regulate this area in such a way as to take care of all developments. One often feels that almost as soon as one: has identified one difficulty, others arise. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are constantly vigilant in this area and that we shall look carefully at the point that he has raised.

Does my hon. Friend realise that constituents of mine with children and young people in their families are very worried by the fact that they are perpetually bombarded with invitations to borrow more and more money? My wife has a great sackful of these unsolicited appeals. What regulations does my hon. Friend propose to introduce to ensure that people fully understand what they are signing up for?

I know that that causes a lot of concern. Let me say immediately that section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prohibits the sending to minors of circulars inviting them to borrow money or to apply for information about obtaining credit, so that aspect is already dealt with. Generally speaking, it is up to lenders to assess the way in which they offer credit, and they rarely offer it to minors, although that is something we shall have to watch. In general, existing legislation covers the point adequately.

What has the legislation done to protect and extend the rights of savers? A constituent of mine who has spent more than two years in an old people's home, during which time her deposit account at the bank remained untouched. Without her knowledge, the bank redesignated the account as dormant and reduced the rate of interest paid on it to I per cent. Are the banks acting within their legal powers in doing that and does the Minister think it right for banks to profiteer at the expense of old people in the despicable way that I have described?

It is quite right that the hon. Gentleman should raise an important constituency matter at Question Time, but I ask him to write to me with the details so that we can consider the case properly. I should not like to try to give an instant answer, but if he will write to me I will see what, if anything, can be done to help to remedy his constituent's grievance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to expand the role of his Department.

None, Sir.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving exactly the sort of reply that I wanted; it was excellent. Does he agree that although from time to time his Department has an excellent role to play as an enabler, it has been an unmitigated disaster whenever it has tried to act as an intervener?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the latter point. I note that the Labour party policy review says:

"The DTI's role will be to develop strategies, to identify priorities and provide the assistance, resources and organising capacity which industry will need."

Will the Minister consider establishing a specialist unit in his Department to monitor and support the work of the British textile and footwear industries? Is he aware that in the past 10 years 380,000 jobs have been lost in those two industries? The Minister for Industry came to Leicester last Friday and was made aware of the deep concern felt by textile and footwear manufacturers about the future of their industry. May we have a unit to support that vital sector of the British economy?

We do indeed monitor the operations of all industries, including the textile industry. It is for the industries themselves to become competitive if they are to preserve their positions, and there are encouraging signs in the textile industry. The industries have benefited from the multi-fibre arrangement over the years. People in the industry have had time to adjust and in many cases have done so successfully.

Has my right hon. Friend any plans to reduce his Department's role?

We have certain problems in our industrial performance at the moment in parts of our industrial effort where the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, the policies of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and intervention generally left some deep holes.

With regard to one expanded role for the Secretary of State's Department—that of providing hidden subsidies—and given that the Secretary of State said last week that there was no need to inform the European Commission, will he tell us now whether there were any discussions between British Aerospace and the Government about failing to inform Parliament and the Commission and the risks associated with that? Are there any other matters in addition to hidden subsidies that he now feels that he should disclose to the House?

For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I would make a distinction between hidden ongoing subsidies or even overt ongoing subsidies and the necessary deal which has to be struck to end the tyranny of state ownership of a loss-making public corporation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the acquisition of MBB by Daimler-Benz, which involved the privatisation of a loss-making German nationalised industry. The hon. Gentleman will discover that there, too, a deal had to be struck which was well worth it in the interests of the taxpayer to get rid of that loss-maker.

Are not the Opposition guilty of trying to have it both ways on this? If the Government had tried to sell the Rover Group to the highest bidder, we would have been accused of putting the group up for a free for all instead of looking after the interests of that company. That is precisely the accusation which the Labour party levelled against us in 1976 when we tried to sell the Rover Group.

I well remember the extraordinary commotion on the Opposition Benches when it seemed possible that the Ford Motor Company might try to buy Rover. That was not a very propitious curtain-raiser for a possible public auction of that company.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he intends to introduce to improve Britain's trade performance.

The keys to trade performance are macro-economic policy, non-interference in the working of the market, the maintenance of open, competitive markets at home and abroad and not setting up an industrial reorganisation corporation.

May I have a reflective reply to the following question? Would a falling exchange rate in any way help Britain's trade performance?

It is not for me to answer for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters of macro-economic policy. However, the export figures in recent weeks have shown a decided tendency to improve now that the pound is at a slightly lower level than before.

Does my right hon. Friend also see a need to help to protect the competitive position of our manufacturing industry against the more extreme green demands, which would lead to an increase in energy prices and drive company cars off the roads of this country?

All those factors are extremely important in maintaining the competitiveness of British industry. If we are to improve our trade deficit, it is vital that we do nothing to put British industry at a competitive disadvantage in a level playing field game with the rest of the Community and the world.

Given the alarming £4 billion trade deficit in electronic products, and now that British Aerospace has withdrawn its interest in purchasing Ferranti, will the Secretary of State intervene to ensure that the future of Ferranti is secured through a joint venture partnership? Does he recognise that if he fails to act, Ferranti could be gobbled up by yet another hostile foreign predator with further untold damage to our balance of trade and to jobs?

The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the trade in electronics. He will find that although our imports in that area are very large, so are our exports. That shows that in a modern sophisticated industry a heavy import and a heavy export are signs of success, not failure. With regard to Ferranti, it is for the Ferranti board to decide what action it wants to take with the various people with whom it is discussing its future. At the present time, I have no role to play in those matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the programme that his Department has pioneered in Japan has produced a remarkable increase in British exports to Japan? Will he now consider a second phase to boost that successful programme so that we can increase our trade with Japan and thus substantially decrease our trade deficit?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but there has also been a large opening up of the Japanese market in many different ways as the result of the pressures that my right hon. Friends have placed on the Japanese and other nations. The Japanese are trying hard to open their market to exporters in other countries. It is a combination of two factors. We will certainly redouble our efforts to make every facility available to British exporters to increase their share of Japanese trade.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to monitor the safety of children's toys.

Local authority trading standards departments have a statutory duty to enforce the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the toy safety regulations made thereunder. The Act provides the necessary powers for the discharge of this responsibility.

It is fine that the provisions exist, but we are about 20 per cent. short of trading standards officers. That is the real problem. We are entering a period in which there is a constant television propaganda campaign for parents to buy toys. There was a disastrous case involving Kinder eggs, which are chocolate eggs with tiny inedible and poisonous toys inside them. Will the Minister ensure that there is urgent action by the Department in the form of a television campaign to warn parents?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. The number of trading standards officers is a matter for local authorities. I am sure that they will discharge their responsibility fully in that regard. My Department is organising a campaign to reach out to parents to remind them at this time of the year of what is principally their responsibility—to ensure that they purchase only safe toys for their children or relatives.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's grossly unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to say that, but it ends supplementaries on that question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.

We provide a comprehensive single market information service through our Europe Open for Business campaign, which is regularly updated and expanded. The practical assistance available through our enterprise initiative is also particularly relevant to firms preparing for the single market. In the private sector an increasing level of information and advice is being provided to help business to adapt to the liberalised European trading conditions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that although other European countries have been forging ahead for some time with their preparations for 1992, his Department has been so dilatory that the television advertising campaign aimed at assisting British industry was arranged so late that the British taxpayer has been landed with a bill £300,000 higher than it need have been, for which the hon. Gentleman has been severely criticised by the National Audit Office? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that if a local councillor took a similar decision he would be liable to surcharge and disqualification from office for gross negligence?

British industry is singularly well equipped to go into the 1992 market. The developments in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency demonstrate that.

What about the £300,000?

Order.

Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen in the past 12 months from 12·1 to 9·8 per cent. and there are two extremely exciting developments there—the Newcastle business park, which will create 2,000 jobs by 1991 and the Gateshead Metro centre, which will create 6,500 jobs by 1991. That shows how well the economy is equipped for 1992.

The Minister will be aware of the comments of Sir John Harvey-Jones, a former chairman of ICI, who said that only half Europe's businesses will survive and that over the next five to seven years the rest will disappear, by acquisition, by mergers or by going bust. Since the implications for big businesses and for small firms are profound, will the Minister turn his attention to the hidden agenda—or is he prepared simply to accept that in areas such as my own in Scotland small businesses on the periphery will disappear because they will be sacrificed on the altar of the Government's twisted approach to 1992?

Yet another hon. Gentleman is allowing his imagination to run riot. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned his own area, let us look at that aspect. I am glad to say that in the past 12 months unemployment in his constituency has fallen from 15·9 to 12·6 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased, I hope, to know that in the next five years the Scottish Development Agency is planning to spend £10 million in the Leven valley, which is close to the hon. Gentleman's area. That is precisely the kind of commitment that the hon. Gentleman has urged upon us.

I congratulate the Government on the help that they are giving to companies in the run-up to 1992, but does my hon. Friend agree that companies should also be gearing up to meet the opportunities presenting themselves in the eastern bloc and the Soviet Union? Is his Department underwriting the future on the Export Credits Guarantee Department so as to help companies in that new area?

I certainly think that the opportunities offered by the changing situation in the eastern part of Europe are exciting and that British industry should be considering how best it can respond to the investment and trading opportunities in that part of Europe.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the European Commission to give higher priority to the creation of a genuinely single market in insurance services by 1 January 1993?

My hon. Friend is quite right to address his remarks to that question. It is a material part of the programme and, generally speaking, we encourage the Commission to produce flat playing fields wherever possible.

Shall we have to wait until the arrival of the internal market in 1992 before the Minister releases for publication the ombudsman's report into the negligence of his Department in the Barlow Clowes affair?

That goes rather wide of the question—[Interruption.]

Order.

Indeed, when one thinks about it, Mr. Speaker, it goes very wide of the question. That being so, I am not going to answer it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of the utmost importance to construct high-speed links to the Channel tunnel as soon as possible? Can he tell the House why the two Labour members of the King's Cross inquiry Committee did not turn up the other day, at enormous cost—

Order. Proceedings in private Bill Committees are not discussed in the Chamber.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the King's Cross inquiry will be conducted with maximum efficiency and speed?

I certainly hope so, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, I fancy that that is not entirely in my hands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had regarding the future operations and funding of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

The interdepartmental working group of officials on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD consulted interested parties both within and outside Government. It has now submitted its report to me, and I am considering it.

In view of that characteristic piece of masterly inactivity on the part of the Secretary of State and with Britain's trade deficit about to enter the "Guinness Book of Records", is it not true that only a lunatic or the Secretary of State, or perhaps both at the same time, would think of monkeying around with those essential support services for exporters? In particular, will he give attention to the fact that any monkeying about of the kind that he may have in mind would affect 770 jobs in Cardiff where essential services are provided for small and medium-sized export businesses—support which is vital as we approach 1992?

I do not see why the hon. Gentleman feels that the question calls for insults. They are completely misplaced.[Interruption.]

Order.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the Government's decision about the Kemp report instead of trying to come to conclusions before the Government have given it the attention that it deserves. The purpose of the operation is to improve the services provided to our exporters and there is no threat to ECGD in such a course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as 70 per cent. of British firms do not export we need to give them maximum help and encouragement to be bold and go into the world markets to export? Is he aware that while other countries offer export credit guarantees, British firms, especially small firms, need the services of ECGD? Will he bear that in mind when he makes his decision?

I shall most certainly bear that important point in mind. There is no question of withdrawing services for exports of goods, from large, small or medium-sized enterprises. It is a question of the status of the ECGD and its duty to perform that function.

While I understand that the Secretary of State has still to make a final decision on the matter, will he give a clear statement to the House that he does not accept the ludicrous suggestion put forward by his hon. Friends in the Treasury that the projects division of ECGD be closed down? Will he further undertake to listen carefully to industry and those who work in ECGD before making a final decision? Does he agree that, with a £20 billion trade deficit, our export efforts need to be increased, not reduced?

I cannot respond to both parts of the hon. Lady's supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] She asked me not to foreclose my eventual decision on the matter and at the same time to foreclose on the question of the projects group by deciding against the zero option. I promise the House that I shall make a decision abundantly clear as soon as possible, and I hope that that will be before long.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that considerable disquiet has been caused by the Government's delay in coming to a decision? In coming to a decision, will he consult the recent important study by Northern Engineering Industries which shows the effect down the line of project finance, which we now hear that the Treasury is against?

We have not had the working group's report for long. My hon. Friend will find that the delay in giving the House a decision on the matter is not at all long. I fully understand and hear what he says about the projects group and the importance of capital goods industries to the north-east. It is certainly one of the factors that we shall take into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the golden shares for which he has responsibility and state his policy towards the use of these shares.

I hold special shares in British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, British Steel, and Jaguar. Decisions on using the rights attached to each of these shares depend on the particular circumstances of each company.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he will dispose of any of those golden shares in the same way as he is to dispose of the golden share in Jaguar, thereby giving the company away to Ford? [Interruption.] Of course it was given away. Was that done in order to stop Ford complaining about being shut out of the secret negotiations with British Aerospace over the Rover group? He cannot object to Ford having Rover because he has given it Jaguar.

The hon. Gentleman should realise that there are two sorts of special share. There are those which are timeless, run for an indefinite period and seek to protect national security interests of one sort or another. The other is time limited. Of the companies that I mentioned, the two which have time-limited special shares are British Steel and Jaguar. The point of those special shares is to protect an industry which is trying to convalesce from the mauling it has had as a publicly owned industry for a few years until it can stand up on its feet and compete in the market. That condition of recovery for Jaguar was abundantly met when I decided to waive the gold share.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that notwithstanding the rather Neanderthal approach of some Opposition Members, others, namely the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), have welcomed the opportunity that the Ford-Jaguar arrangements provide? My right hon. Friend's speedy decision on the question of the golden share has enabled that company to join forces with Ford to provide us with a strong element in the British motor car industry.

I am fully prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says, although I do not think that it is for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of any particular bid or takeover. I am sure that both alternatives before Jaguar should have strengthened it and that is a great tribute to the performance of the Jaguar management until now. I do not particularly like special shares because they put one in a position where one might have to make a choice which could be said to be partial. I am more prejudiced against them having discovered that the Labour party is thinking of using them for its nefarious purposes if it ever gained power.

So that we might have some guidance on future policy, will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions, consultations or assurances he received from Ford prior to waiving the golden share about manufacturing in this country, research and development, and the preservation of the Jaguar mark? What consultations has he had with Ford since waiving the share?

I wish I could have an opportunity to give the hon. Gentleman guidance on a whole range of matters. He certainly needs it. The answer to his question is none.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time in this trading country that we stopped being so hostile to inward investment? Is he aware that my constituents in south Derbyshire work happily for the Swiss company of NestlÉ and for the Swedish company of Asea Brown Boveri and that we are about to welcome a Japanese company? I honestly do not believe that my constituents in Rolls-Royce are all that bothered either way about the golden share held by my right hon. Friend. Is not a real golden share, and the only one worth having, the share in prosperity that is brought by these companies and this investment to my region and this country?

I should like to agree with my hon. Friend that the role played by inward investment into this country from overseas has begun to fill some of the industrial gaps left by the ravages of the Socialist Government when they tried to have an industrial strategy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to announce the level of his financial support for the Northern Development Company for 1990.

I expect to announce the levels of grant in aid which will be awarded to each of the regional development organisations, including the Northern Development Company, for the financial year 1990–91, in March 1990.

When my hon. Friend comes to consider the funding of the NDC, will he give due regard to the great value to the region of the excellent work performed by it in promoting the region both at home and overseas? Will he further give regard to the commendable level of support which it receives locally from industry and authorities in the region?

Most certainly. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the help that he has given to the NDC and for the part that he played in setting up that organisation. He will be pleased to know that, over the years, funding has steadily increased. For example, in 1981–82 funding was £230,000, but in 1989–90 it is £1,182,000, inclusive of core funding.

The Minister gave his usual non-answer. What does the Secretary of State have in mind for English Estates? Incidentally, in 1936, the right hon. Gentleman's father was one of the first directors of English Estates and it is evident that he had more vision than his son, especially as press reports suggest that it is about to be privatised. That privatisation would be a further blow to the northern region because English Estates has played a significant role in the development of science parks and technology transfer centres. Those developments are sorely needed if we are to get manufacturing back on to a competitive edge so that we can start to reduce the £20 billion trade deficit.

I have a very high regard for the work of English Estates, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that if he wants to ask a question about English Estates it would be a good idea to do a bit of homework and table a question. We are now talking about the Northern Development Company, which is a different thing altogether. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of that difference and I find it remarkable that such a person should be sitting on the Front Bench of the Labour party.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the NDC does not give the appearance of having much more than a polite interest in the affairs that it is supposed to overlook in Cumbria? Before he starts giving it a whole lot of money will he try to extract an undertaking from it that it will demonstrate a more positive approach to the problems of Cumbria?

Having had the privilege of serving under my right hon. Friend when he was Chief Whip I can think of nobody more competent than he to remind NDC of that. I look forward to the discussion that I am sure will take place between NDC and my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways, including the introduction of an order under the Prices Act 1974, as amended, on price indications, and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

What steps is the Minister taking to try to implement the recommendations of the National Consumer Council on product guarantees? Is he considering following the practice in the United States where consumers are given a guarantee that if a major purchase breaks down and is not satisfactorily repaired a full replacement is supplied?

I am, of course, giving close and careful consideration, as I always do, to the recommendations by the National Consumer Council. Although I yield to none in my admiration for the United States I do not believe that we should always seek to copy what our friends in the United States do. Although I shall consider carefully the recommendations of the National Consumer Council, I have yet to make up my mind about whether they would be beneficial to our consumers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide consumer protection is to have a proper degree of competition between the companies that provide the goods and services consumed by the public? Surely it is competition and free enterprise that provide good consumer protection.

I have enormous sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that if we look carefully at these matters we shall see that consumers in the West under capitalism have enjoyed a much greater degree of consumer protection and benefit than their opposite numbers behind what we used to call the iron curtain. Therefore, the best possible approach is the one that we are now taking. which is to temper the advantages and benefits of the market and competition with a light regulatory touch.

In view of the Minister's direct responsibility for consumer protection, will he be contacting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to urge him to make available to the consumer information regarding the safety of the use of microwave cookers?

The hon. Gentleman has wasted his opportunity because, as he well knows, my right hon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the joys of the market place is the ever-changing perspective of the need for consumer protection, as with the levelling off of the housing market? Does he agree that now that the frothiness has been taken away, the need to legislate against estate agents has been reduced?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked the Director-General of Fair Trading to look carefully at estate agency and its business practices, and to come up with recommendations. When he reports to me early in the new year, as I have asked him, I will look, as always, most carefully at his recommendations to see whether we can agree on the best way forward.

Does the Minister accept that public confidence in any new legislation to protect the consumer is severely dented by his failure to implement current legislation? A young girl died on 5 November after swallowing part of a toy in an egg like the one I have in my hand. That was the second such death and the manufacturers are withdrawing the egg. Consumer protection officers have asked for it to be banned, and yet despite that it is on sale in large quantities in hundreds of thousands of shops throughout the country. Why does not the Minister use his powers under section 13 to ban the toy altogether?

I slightly regret the tone and terms with which the hon. Gentleman has presented the matter to the House, but I shall give him a full answer. As he well knows—or perhaps he does not—the enforcement of existing laws is a matter for the trading standards officers who do an excellent and superb job in enforcing consumer protection laws at local level. In this case, which one of his hon. Friends raised earlier, we looked carefully at the matter and were affected by the death of the young child. However, on balance, given that the product has been on sale for many years in this country and throughout Europe—millions of them are sold every year and its packaging contains a warning—I took the difficult decision that the death did not justify banning the product. I did so mainly because the child's tragic death was caused by the ingestion of a small part of the egg's contents. Many other products and toys with small parts are available in the market place. If we were to start banning every product that could be swallowed by a child, there would be very few toys left in the market. This is primarily a matter for parents and I am sure that all parents are aware of the potential danger to children of small items. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we look at all such cases most carefully and, in this case, made a difficult—I believe the right—decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made within the European Commission in agreeing Communitywide powers to regulate cross-border takeovers and mergers.

At the 23 November Internal Market Council, major progress was made in negotiations on the proposed EC merger control regulation setting out Community powers to regulate certain EC mergers. Agreement was reached in principle on a number of important issues. Discussion will be resumed at the Council on 21 December.

Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations for the work that his Department has done to speed progress in European co-operation towards achieving the 1992 programme in competition policy and other matters such as insurance services? Will he confirm that the French have dropped their requirement for an industrial element in this policy as opposed to our desire for competition principles to be predominant? Has the Commission decided satisfactorily on the degree of flexibility in referrals for smaller countries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I can confirm that good progress was made at the last Council. I am hopeful—but not certain—that an agreement will be reached during this Presidency. We can be satisfied with the criteria for the Communitywide mergers to be considered by the Commission, which are almost entirely on competition grounds.

Whether the House is for or against the EEC—I am certainly against it—can the Secretary of State tell me exactly what the Government are doing to protect Ferranti, bearing in mind the predators within and outside this country who intend to take it over and asset strip it? That means that jobs will go and a major asset will be reduced to ruins both north and south of the border. Are the Government doing anything about that? Will the Government act as a guarantor for British industry or will they just sit back and listen?

I think that everything in that supplementary question was out of order and unacceptable—[Interruption.]

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thinking that you are the only person who can rule whether something is in or out of order in the House and not a Minister from the Dispatch Box?

If I had thought it out of order, I would have said so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an important strategic need to develop large transcontinental companies across Europe in many of the important industries of tomorrow? In order for those companies to emerge, is there not a need for a coherent and consistent takeovers and mergers policy across Europe? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is wholly committed to the creation of such a regime?

I do believe that the regime—[Interruption.]

Order.

I believe that the regime in Europe should put as its first priority the preservation of competition, both in distinct markets and in the Community market as a whole. It is more important that there should be competition than that we should seek to construct large European champions in any industry. I believe that there is room for both, but competition must come first.

Once the European countries have hammered out an agreement on this, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in this country will not carry forward its unfortunate practice of investigating whole industries where companies are competing unless there is clear evidence that prices are being fixed or that the companies are following other incorrect trade practices? Will he stop the MMC from producing grand bureaucratic designs for those industrial sectors as it did with the brewing industry?

The subject matter of this question has been Communitywide mergers of assets in excess of 5 billion ecu. Of course it is true that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is also asked to carry out investigations into situations of imperfect competition. Those investigations are agreed by myself or, in the case of the beer report, by my predecessors. It would be wrong not to turn the spotlight on uncompetitive aspects of the particular industry under consideration. We should continue to have that power. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have views on the beer report that he might wish to express when the orders come before the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised a point of order about the Secretary of State not being allowed to decide which questions are in order in the House, and you indicated your agreement. Surely the Secretary of State cannot brush aside a question by declaring it out of order? He should apologise to the House for usurping your job; otherwise, any Minister could ignore questions.

I have said endless times before that I am not responsible for what is said in answer to questions. I said that I did not judge the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) out of order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding access for British exports to the Japanese market.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 1 November. In the first 10 months of this year our exports to Japan increased in value by 30 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given level playing fields in the markets of Japan and elsewhere, plenty of British exports such as Scotch whisky and financial services are world beaters? As we allow free access to our market for the benefit of British consumers, will he do everything that he can to ensure full reciprocation in Japan and other countries?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Prime Minister pressed the Prime Minister of Japan vigorously on this point, and Japanese markets are being substantially liberalised. I have already mentioned the increase in exports in the first 10 months of this year. Last year, I am glad to say, there was an increase of 17 per cent.

The Minister will know that that 102 per cent. increase is greatly appreciated, not least in my constituency, in which there are 43 distilleries. What specific action is he taking to ensure that the advance achieved over the past year will be enhanced by finally breaking down all barriers against Scotch whisky in the Japanese market?

I should like to have said that I had the hon. Lady in mind when I gave the figure but that would not be wholly true. She is right to be concerned. The problem relates to deception by look-alikes. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister strongly pressed the Japanese Prime Minister on the need to take action to prevent deception by look-alikes in the Japanese market and she was able to obtain considerable reassurances from him on that point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of getting more products into the Japanese market is to make British products more competitive? Under a previous Conservative Government there was a 6 per cent. payroll tax, in the form of employers' national insurance; under the next Labour Government it was 13 per cent., and it is still too high in the United Kingdom, at 10·5 per cent. Will my hon. Friend talk to the Chancellor about reducing it is soon as possible?

As so often, my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party has learnt nothing on this sort of matter. For example, it proposes a payroll tax, echoing the errors that it committed in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux on the funding requirements in 1990-91 of their comprehensive advice service.

The funding of individual citizens advice bureaux is a matter for local decision, and my Department is not involved in those discussions. I have however met representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and of Citizens Advice Scotland in recent months and among the topics discussed was their funding requirements.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to express his appreciation of the invaluable work carried out by CABs in giving free and confidential advice to members of the public? Will he acknowledge that the CABs are now dealing with a vast increase in the number of inquiries about, for example, unemployment benefit, health and social security payments, cuts in housing benefit and now problems about debt repayment following the increase in interest rates? Given that many of those problems stem directly from the Government's social and economic policies, does he think that he has a moral responsibility to ensure adequate and continuing funding for the CABs?

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in praising citizens advice bureaux all over the country for their marvellous work in advising people who come to them for advice on a range of matters. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have funded the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the tune of £9·9 million this year, an increase from less than £2 million 10 years ago. That demonstrates the Government's recognition in funding as well as praise, which I am happy to give to the work of the national association. I emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the funding of local bureaux has always been and remains a matter for local authority decision. Local authorities can amply take care of that and I expect them to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order later.